Podcast

Rameshwar Prasad v. UOI

Rameshwar Prasad v. UOI

Rameshwar prasad and others v. Union of India

Citation: 2006 2 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India

Facts of the case: On March 7, 2005, the Presidents Rule was imposed in the state of Bihar as no party had the required majority 122 MLA’s in a 243-member assembly to form the government. Afterwards LJP MLA’s merged with JD(U) and thus NDA was in a position to form the government. But, in the meantime, the Governor sent a report to the president and dissolved the assembly in May 2006 by imposing presidents rule. The members of the dissolved house challenged the action of the governor.

Issue: whether the dissolution of the Assembly under Article 356(1) of the constitution could be ordered to prevent the staking of claim by a political party?

Judgment:  The Supreme Court by a majority judgment held that the Proclamation of President rule dissolving the assembly was unconstitutional and based on extraneous and irrelevant grounds. The court said the governor acted in undue haste in sending report to dissolve the assembly and the motive was clearly to prevent JD(U) from staking claim to form a government after a fractured Assembly polls verdict.

The court also held that it  was in its power of judicial review to examine whether the Governor’s report was: (a) based on relevant material ; (b) made bonafide ; and (c) if the facts had been duly verified or not. The contention by the respondents that the report of the governor is by itself of significance and that it was impermissible for the Court to go into questions was rejected. It was specified that the actions under Article 356 could not be justified on personal opinion, suspicion, whims and fancies of the governor. It was held that the immunity granted to him by Article 361(1) does not take away the power of court to examine the validity of the action. The Supreme Court being the sentinel on the que vive could not remain a silent spectator watching the subversion of the constitution.

Referring to Article 356 of the Constitution, the Court reasoned that “one highly significant role Governor has to play under the Constitution is of making a report where he finds that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”. The Court further added that the Governor “is not amenable to the directions of the Government of India, nor is he accountable to them for the manner in which he carries out his functions and duties. He is an independent constitutional office which is not subject to the control of the Government of India.”

This case is of significance as it displayed the role of governor and detailed the relation between the constitutional functionaries. The judgment also gave a lot of emphasis to impartial quality governor ought to possess as a constitutional body.